Selfsufficientish.com

Yea I agree. Then there's the other thing of natural selection we're taking that away so now are we going to become a weaker race?? That's the big picture we all don't want to see, me being one of them cause the thought of it is horrid, but really we must be getting weaker the more we mess with mother nature??

Right I am making myself depressed now back to the topic lol

Clara wrote:OK I stand corrected about AMS.

I shall type out verbatim the information from which I gathered the 69%, it may explain your figure too....

The government states that the MMR vaccine is 90% effective against measles and mumps and 95% effect against Rubella. A booster jab is needed to ensure that 95% of the population are immune. this will ensure that enough people will be immune to measles, so that the disease is unable to cause epidemics and will die away (citation Salisbury & Begg. Immunisation against infectious disease. Dept of Health, HMSO 1996).
In 1995, 475 children who had been given the MMR triple jab were tested for resistance to each of the diseases. 99% were resistant to Rubella, 69% were resistant to measles and 81% resistant to mumps (citation Miller et al, Vaccine, 1995 ;13:799-802)

Now you could argue that 1996 trumps 1995 as being more up to date, but its dubious. The sample size wasn´t huge in the first study, but I can´t find any reference for the research that informed the latter.....it was also released by the government ( a little "sexing-up" perhaps ), and the earlier study would have had to had some serious methodology problems to get it that wrong (BTW for anyone that doesn´t know Vaccine is a journal aimed at an audience of those in the research, production and clinical practice).

OK - there is the NHS stuff dated 2008, which can be found here:http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/questions ... .php?id=20
I suppose it could be argued that since the NHS has to pay for the vaccine or pay for the treatment they would be interested in pushing the cheapest option.

A little more scholerly there was a study using two groups of 300-odd children to test whether there was any varriation in effectiveness in varying the age at which the first dose was given. For both groups only five children were found not to be immune after the second dose, so better than 98%. I have the abstract, but it is in French:

Résumé / Abstract
Lors d'une épidémie de rougeole au Texas, 302 enfants ont été vaccinés à moins de 10 mois puis revaccinés après 15 mois. Leur réponse au test ELISA a été comparée à celle de 300 témoins vaccinés à l'âge normal après 15 mois: 5 séro-négatifs seulement dans chaque groupe mais les titres d'anticorps ont été significativement plus élevés dans le groupe témoin vacciné en une injection à l'âge normal. Cependant la vaccination précoce suivie de revaccination peut être indiquée chez les enfants à risque de rougeole grave

You can read as many contradictory studies and views as there are pebbles on a beach.

Couldn´t agree more.

I was about to type my critique of both of those snippets, but I think I´ll go and watch the sunset instead........